- This topic has 26 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
- Posts
end of last season it was clear the horse could win races yet it was constantly given little or no chance, inrace. 1st time out this season, 9lb out of the hc, 2lb overweight..14/1..12/1..10/1..8/1……..bingo! 11lb ‘wrong’ and gambled on, THE STEWARDS?…no questions…the racing post?……"clearly expected.." is this credit crunch racing?
I think Luca Cumanis training methods of simply not training a group class horse to win a maiden are more of a concern.
Presvis, from a Sandown 72 handicapper to an International Group 1 winning horse, wow
A key point might be that Shekan Star hasn’t had a full campaign since 2006. Both 2007 and 2008 seasons were curtailed so perhaps it’s just a case that the stable have worked hard to get the mare fit and she has finally blossomed. On previous evidence she has done no more than return to the level of form she showed in 2006.
It should be noted too that the race really wasn’t very competitive for a 0-70. More a question of good training and good placement rather than anything more sinister.
Rob
A key point might be that Shekan Star hasn’t had a full campaign since 2006. Both 2007 and 2008 seasons were curtailed so perhaps it’s just a case that the stable have worked hard to get the mare fit and she has finally blossomed. On previous evidence she has done no more than return to the level fo form she showed in 2006.
It should be noted to othat the race really wasn’t very competitive for a 0-70. More a question of good training and good placement rather than snything mroe sinister.
Rob
Spot on Rob, and as a backer of the mare in the morning, I can confirm it was her form claims rather than any word which caused me and other backers to get involved at a generous price.
A further point on Shekan Star. Looking at it’s previous few runs I noticed that she had been ‘held up’ but on thie occasion it tracked the leaders. Change of tactics giving it more chance possibly? A reasonable line until investigating her previous placed runs and they all came from being ‘held up’ as well, so nothing over significant there.
It would be reasonable to suppose that a horse which is held up is one who tends to pull hard. It might therefore be a reasonable supposition that Shekan Star has perhaps mellowed with age and is now more amenable, or, God forbid, the stable worked really hard and found the key to her! Let’s face it, she was a 4 year old when last getting a decent season’s racing, and plenty happens to a horse between the ages of 4 and 7, even more so to mares I suggest.
Rob
A further point on Shekan Star. Looking at it’s previous few runs I noticed that she had been ‘held up’ but on thie occasion it tracked the leaders. Change of tactics giving it more chance possibly? A reasonable line until investigating her previous placed runs and they all came from being ‘held up’ as well, so nothing over significant there.
It would be reasonable to suppose that a horse which is held up is one who tends to pull hard. It might therefore be a reasonable supposition that Shekan Star has perhaps mellowed with age and is now more amenable, or, God forbid, the stable worked really hard and found the key to her! Let’s face it, she was a 4 year old when last getting a decent season’s racing, and plenty happens to a horse between the ages of 4 and 7, even more so to mares I suggest.
Rob
Shekan Star was slowly into stride in her three runs last year and was held up as a result; that "s.i.s" can sometimes raise suspicions, but I don’t think that’s true in this case. She may have been wrong at the weights but her curtailed campaign last year suggested that only ring rustiness stopped her from running up to her previous best. On that basis she was overpriced for her reappearance. There is absolutely no reason why the stewards would ask for an explanation for the improvement shown, and there were no suspicious betting patterns regarding her previous runs. The Racing Post do themselves no favours by mistakenly attributing every market move to connections when they are often the work of professional punters, as was certainly the case here.
just looked at the ncs race.the horse was not ‘sis’ , was well placed and going along on the bridle. after 6months off ‘ring rustiness’ certainly did not play a part at bev’ and her previous best after 36 races was a lowly top speed of 54.given an OR range low of 45 and high of 56 going off at 54 does not scream ‘good thing’. an average price on the 3 races last year was 28/1 and average distance beaten was 20L. as you attribute this gamble to ‘professional punters’,do you believe they just took a chance all was rosy in the shekan star garden or that whoever backed it (granted not all) certainly knew things were in the full flush of spring. though you say you are certain, i am less so.
just looked at the ncs race.the horse was not ‘sis’ , was well placed and going along on the bridle. after 6months off ‘ring rustiness’ certainly did not play a part at bev’ and her ‘previous best’ after 36 races was a lowly top speed of 54.given an OR range low of 45 and high of 56 going off at 54 does not scream ‘good thing’. an average price on the 3 races last year was 28/1 and average distance beaten was 20L. as you attribute this gamble to ‘professional punters’,do you believe they just took a chance all was rosy in the shekan star garden or that whoever backed it (granted not all) certainly knew things were in the full flush of spring. though you say you are certain, i am less so.
You need to define who the "they" is who are getting away with it, and how. Otherwise pipe down, fella.
why so personal. its a point of debate and argument. i responded to your points ,point for point?
why so personal. its a point of debate and arguement. i responded to your points ,point for point?
Nothing personal; you are essentially accusing someone of cheating and should at least make good on that accusation. I’m not suggesting that there are not nefarious activities in the racing world, but I’m afraid you got the wrong end of the stick on this particular case. The Beverley race was weak and (based on Timeform’s historical figures and comments), Shekan Star had a decent chance despite being wrong at the weights. She certainly wasn’t a good thing and wasn’t backed as if she was, merely as if she had a marginally better than average chance of winning. She certainly wasn’t run down the field to get an attractive mark last year (otherwise why run her at disadvantageous weights?) and this does not in any way appear a suspicious gamble. I reiterate that it isn’t for "racing" to defend itself here, but rather for those who make vague allegations of corruption to add substance to their gripes.
we are clearly looking at this from very different perspectives.i accept i could have worded it more tactfully.yet horse racing is a tarnished betting medium which, in my humble view,should be seen to be looking at how it is perceived. as for your point, if the horse was ‘in’ the hc proper what price would it have been? morning perhaps 5s,4s and sp 13/8, 11/8. as you accept there are some questionable goings on, on occasion, can you not see how the ‘bookie punter’ without any real knowledge of the inner sanctum of racing would view this profile? if such punters walked away how long would racing survive?
geneosull
Your inference is that horses with perceived poor form should not be ‘backed’ or ‘allowed’ to win, that horses from out of the handciap should not be ‘backed’ or ‘allowed’ to win.
Far from being a tarnished betting medium, racing works out pretty well as expected. Look at returns for the range of prices and horses win at more or less the rate you would expect them to for their prices.
Then we have the mysterious power of ‘they’. Who are ‘they’? OK, it’s a ‘universal term’. A universal term for who or what? One thing I see is that’s it’s way of blaming one’s own analytical failings on others.
You make vague accusations without an awful lot of substance to back them up.
I have no particularly strong knowledge of the ‘inner sanctum of racing’, whatever that may be, but I’ve managed to make a steady profit from my betting over the last few years, prinicipally by careful study, using my judgement, recognising my own errors and acting to put them right and applying common sense. More to the point in question, trusting that, as in ‘real life’ all but a very small percentage of people in racing are honest and seek to make a living by trying their best. If your outlook on racing and life in general suggests otherwise then you have my sympathy.
Aside from that, I do have pride in the fact that I have discovered where the shift key is!
Rob
oh dear. i have upset you! you constantly avoid the overriding point i make.you attribute inferences to me that are inaccurrate and away from the point yet criticise me for doing so.i give you fallon ,dean mak,fergal lyn and many trainers and owners.i have noted a poor level of debate with the increase of the mares profile being shown. i thought this was an open forum to air views and perhaps change opinions , my own included, based on argument and stats.it seems that is not the case and you require a closed shop. AS FOR THE SHIFT KEY YOU MUST BE VERY PROUD INDEED. i now withdraw to private life and leave you to bolster each other in the time honoured way .
NO! Don’t leave the forum, Geneosull. Your points are as welcome as anyone else’s, and just as valid. It’s not necessary to be entirely precise, accurate, forthcoming, articulate and interesting on this forum as some would have you to believe. For every post that someone aggressively disagrees with there are probably half a dozen other passive non-posters who will welcome the opportunity of reading what you have to write. So, please don’t feel offended. Stay around a while and get to know who you might enjoy communicating with and who you choose not to. Horses for courses should be your maxim.
Cheers
Ken
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.